The Intel Ad: Photocopiers working full-time at Cupertino

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 73
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    So a band or performer should strive for the obscurity (in the name of not selling out) that prevents their message getting out anytime good fortune comes calling? That's a recipie for mediocrity.
  • Reply 42 of 73
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    I think you are confusing goals and means.
  • Reply 43 of 73
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hiro

    So a band or performer should strive for the obscurity (in the name of not selling out) that prevents their message getting out anytime good fortune comes calling? That's a recipie for mediocrity.



    I wouldn't call their videos being plagiarized 'good fortune'. Plus some people value originality more than money.
  • Reply 44 of 73
    Quote:

    Originally posted by svin

    Actually its normal that the creative companies owns THE COPYRIGHTS to the ideas and concepts they make. The record company in this case only owns THE PRODUCT which is the music video itself. The Music video can of course not be used directly by someone else. But if the creative company didn't agree to any special agreement, they have the right to use the same idea somewhere else.



    The copyright is owned by those who paid for it. Depending on their agreement, labels may or may not own the copyright to the video. Looking at the industry as a whole, this is almost always the case. We don't know if the directors retained the copyright, but as I said, looking at the industry and the way this kind of thing works, that is highly unlikely.





    Quote:

    The excact same thing happened to a music video by Norwegian Röyksopp, which was remade as a comercial for an Energy Company.



    Which song was it: Sparks?
  • Reply 45 of 73
    elixirelixir Posts: 782member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by svin

    Actually its normal that the creative companies owns THE COPYRIGHTS to the ideas and concepts they make. The record company in this case only owns THE PRODUCT which is the music video itself. The Music video can of course not be used directly by someone else. But if the creative company didn't agree to any special agreement, they have the right to use the same idea somewhere else.



    The excact same thing happened to a music video by Norwegian R?yksopp, which was remade as a comercial for an Energy Company.




    thats prob what happened,





    and so in that case YES the band should be greatful that apple gave them a nice boost
  • Reply 46 of 73
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Elixir

    and so in that case YES the band should be greatful that apple gave them a nice boost



    No, they SHOULD NOT be grateful that Apple re-used their videos for the sake of making more money.



    Again: not everybody is into making money and commercialism.
  • Reply 47 of 73
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean

    I wouldn't call their videos being plagiarized 'good fortune'. Plus some people value originality more than money.



    You can't plagarize yourself if you are the content owner, then it is just reuse.



    As has been said a couple times already, if the band didn't purchase the creative idea rights from the writer, the non-audio content of the video is not theirs to control. Typically music video creative rights (as opposed to revenue generation ownership of the actual video) are owned by the producer/director because they are the ones who are also the writers. This general concept is quite established across all flavors of media and has been for a VERY long time.
  • Reply 48 of 73
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hiro

    [B]You can't plagarize yourself if you are the content owner, then it is just reuse.



    We don't know who the content owner is yet, but based on some of the reactions from the label representative, it's not the directors.





    Quote:

    As has been said a couple times already, if the band didn't purchase the creative idea rights from the writer, the non-audio content of the video is not theirs to control. Typically music videos are owned by the producer/director because they are the ones who are also the writers. This general concept is quite established across all flavors of media and has been for a VERY long time.



    Wrong. Typically music videos are owned by those who paid for them. Copyright included. If the label didn't own the video, their representative would not say 'they did not ask for permission' because there would be no need to ask for a permission.



    It is still unclear just exactly what happened and who's the owner, but all signs lead to the labels. Let's wait and see though.
  • Reply 49 of 73
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean

    We don't know who the content owner is yet, but based on some of the reactions from the label representative, it's not the directors.









    Wrong. Typically music videos are owned by those who paid for them. Copyright included. If the label didn't own the video, their representative would not say 'they did not ask for permission' because there would be no need to ask for a permission.



    It is still unclear just exactly what happened and who's the owner, but all signs lead to the labels. Let's wait and see though.




    I agree on the wait and see. I don't put much stock in a PR rep statement about not asking for permission. Those mini-prepared statements are not nearly as well vetted as the contracts themselves are. And I'm not arguing who owns the video either, but who owns the idea or story the video is based on which are two separate things.
  • Reply 50 of 73
    elixirelixir Posts: 782member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean

    No, they SHOULD NOT be grateful that Apple re-used their videos for the sake of making more money.



    Again: not everybody is into making money and commercialism.




    eh, whatever you say.





    if this was a band with real substance i'd agree with you
  • Reply 51 of 73
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Elixir

    eh, whatever you say.





    if this was a band with real substance i'd agree with you




    "Well. Apple may have broken some intellectual property laws but it doesn´t matter because this band sucks"



    Sorry. Objectivity beats subjectivity.



    BTW have you ever heard a Postal Service album? They are actually pretty good.
  • Reply 52 of 73
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Elixir

    if this was a band with real substance i'd agree with you



    Or perhaps, if you had a better taste in music, I would agree with you. Alas,...
  • Reply 53 of 73
    svinsvin Posts: 30member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean











    Which song was it: Sparks?




    Maybe for musicians its different, but for architects, designers and graphic designers it is normal that the artist or creative company owns the rights to the ideas presented. The company who orders the work owns only the rights to the product itself, meaning that the artist can freely use the ideas elesewhere. (This is unless anything elese is agreen upon)





    The video is Royksopp's "Remind Me". you can see it here:



    Remind Me





    You can see the add for energy company Areva here:



    Areva





    Its an amazing video by the way!



    the directors are called H5



    H5





    /
  • Reply 54 of 73
    aplnubaplnub Posts: 2,590member
    It is common for me to have software developed specifically for our company but I don't have the rights to stop the company developing the software packages for us from reselling it to my competition unless I pay for exclusive rights.



    Otherwise, I get a non-compete clause for X time and after that they can market to other companies. I would say that is what happened with the USPS ad.
  • Reply 55 of 73
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aplnub

    I would say that is what happened with the USPS ad.



    It's not USPS, it's a band called 'The Postal Service'.
  • Reply 56 of 73
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    Quote:

    01/19/06



    A Note from Ben



    It has recently come to our attention that Apple Computers' new television commercial for the Intel chip features a shot-for-shot recreation of our video for 'Such Great Heights' made by the same filmmakers responsible for the original. We did not approve this commercialization and are extremely disappointed with both parties that this was executed without our consultation or consent. -Ben Gibbard, The Postal Service



    http://www.postalservicemusic.net/
  • Reply 57 of 73
    aplnubaplnub Posts: 2,590member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean

    It's not USPS, it's a band called 'The Postal Service'.



    It was supposed to be a sly joke.
  • Reply 58 of 73
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    look, spend two bucks and WATCH THE VIDEO. yes, there are some very distinct similarities. there are single-frame shots that are almost identical. but the video is VERY DIFFERENT from the ad. i'm not lying. just watch it. hell, if you're too cheap to spend the two bucks, just watch the 30-second preview, IN ITS ORIGINAL INTENDED CONTEXT, and see what i mean for yourself.



    The Postal Service - Such Great Heights Video
  • Reply 59 of 73
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    Quote:



    A side by side comparison is more fair, in my opinion, as the Intel ad is what, 15 seconds? And the Postal Service is minutes long. Of course the TPS video is going to be 'different'... it includes more footage! But that doesn't change the fact that it's a re-created ad.



    Just watch this comparison and see how 'distinctly similar' they are.



    Side by Side comparison
  • Reply 60 of 73
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean

    A side by side comparison is more fair, in my opinion, as the Intel ad is what, 15 seconds? And the Postal Service is minutes long. Of course the TPS video is going to be 'different'... it includes more footage! But that doesn't change the fact that it's a re-created ad.



    Just watch this comparison and see how 'distinctly similar' they are.



    Side by Side comparison




    So, we've been over this. Come full circle. In the end...who really cares? There are so many relevant facts that are absent from our discussion here that it seems that it really warrants ending it until there are more available. This is between Apple, their ad agency, the video producers, record company and the band.
Sign In or Register to comment.